Something happened in the international arena when Boris Johnson was appointed Great Britain’s foreign secretary. This «something» could be seen as a new timber to the hypocritical moralizing at which the Anglo-Saxons have always excelled. In Boris Johnson that creative fervor is coupled with flights of fancy, producing particularly rich fruit.

Boris Johnson recently delighted the Western public with his speculation that Russia’s military operations in Syria will make it a pariah nation that will be shamed before the whole world and then lapse into utter insignificance. Since no one else has been able to divine the immediate future in such detail, one must wonder where he gets such superhuman insight. And what is it that the Anglo-Saxons are after in their quest to put a stop to the offensive operations of the Syrian troops that are supported by the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces in Aleppo? What would be the advantage of either a brief or lengthy lull in the fighting?

– Will the leaders of IS abandon their efforts to create their «global caliphate»?

– Will the IS goons suddenly morph into disciples of peace and cooperation?

– Will the terror being waged against the local non-Sunnis come to an end?

– Will the terrorist infiltration of Europe cease?

What will the Anglo-Saxons get from a halt to the hostilities? Are they remembering the war crimes committed by their fathers, who for incomprehensible reasons torched the residents of Hamburg, Leipzig, and Dresden with phosphorus bombs, as well as unleashing a nuclear conflagration on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have they been seized with a belated sense of shame and are thus trying to think outside the box to find ways to fight this deadly foe?

But of course Barack Obama – the «world’s president» – recently confirmed in Japan that he had no intention of apologizing for America’s nuclear attack, and no hints of regret have ever been heard from London for the hundreds of thousands of Germans they incinerated.

Maybe there’s something we don’t know and the Anglo-Saxons actually have a secret plan to appease IS that would help prevent further civilian casualties?

These questions remain unanswered, but it’s hard not to recognize some historical parallels that make it possible to at least understand something of the behavior of Boris Johnson and others of his ilk.

The figure of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain certainly leaps to mind, who, during the three years of his administration (1937-1940), was able to offer Hitler all the prerequisites for the start of World War II. And that legendary prime minister acted in accordance with this very principle of «appeasement» that today dominates the agenda of the State Department and Foreign Office.

As we know, Chamberlain’s biggest political rival – Winston Churchill – vehemently objected to the «appeasement» of Hitler and called the prime minister a fool for pursuing such a policy. And he was not far off base.

Chamberlain’s record included a series of idiotic exploits, beginning with his refusal to assist Spain’s Republican government in 1937, which led to the entrenchment and then spread of fascism throughout Europe.

Guided by a policy of «appeasing» Nazi Germany, Chamberlain decided to use diplomatic concessions to put off the onset of the war. Therefore, he – along with Hitler, Mussolini, and Daladier – signed the 1938 Munich Agreement, which opened the way for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, with the British prime minister referring to the matter as «a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.»

Then he entered into secret negotiations with Nazi Germany (the London negotiations of 1939), which, in his opinion, should have allowed Britain to be spared any role in the impending war.

Neville Chamberlain rejected the Soviet Union’s proposals to set up a system to ensure the collective security of Europe and derailed the Soviet-Anglo-French negotiations in Moscow in 1939.

He did not accept US President Franklin Roosevelt’s offer to convene a conference of the great powers to discuss matters of security.

He refused military assistance to Poland after the German attack.

He botched the British military expedition in Norway in 1940.

With a long list of such «exploits» to his credit and awash in disgrace, Chamberlain was forced to resign in 1940. But the damage had been done. The Second World War had already begun.

It is hardly necessary to delve too deeply into Chamberlain’s motives. It never occurred to this British snob, with no political training but blessed with an expansive sense of arrogance, that there just might be things he did not understand. One phrase that he uttered upon his return from Munich – «I believe it is peace for our time» – offers evidence that Winston Churchill was right. Arrogance and stupidity go hand in hand.

But who are we talking about here? About Chamberlain or about Boris Johnson? Who is this new British foreign secretary? Is this a mere stroll through a world of illusions or the most cynical hypocrisy?

Because by now everyone understands that there is no moderate opposition in Syria. That is a yarn spun by the Americans and the British that they foist upon the rest of the world. Either the armed factions there enjoy the support of the Anglo-Saxons and overthrow the Syrian government – assuming that the Russians are sidelined – or else Damascus and Moscow snap the neck of the dragon of the Islamic State.

Boris Johnson is pushing to have Russia sidelined, and it matters little to us whether he is the heir to that «idiotic» Chamberlain or whether he is evincing the classic hypocrisy of the British politician. What matters is that he is not frightened by the prospect of a terrorist victory in Syria. He views the world through the monocle of an inveterate, arrogant British snob.

Eighty years ago, Neville Chamberlain’s policies – and others like it – helped unleash a global catastrophe. Where might the policy of their political heirs lead?